- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4457 RSA No. 975 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 975 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI GOVERDHANA REDDY S/O SRI RAGHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.220 VISHWAVESHWARAIAH NAGARA BALLARY TOWN AND DISTRICT PIN - 583 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R HARSHA, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI RAVI S/O SR NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. SMT. PADMA W/O SRI PATELAPPA D/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT GUNDASANDRA VILLAGE HANABLE POST DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4457 RSA No. 975 of 2022 4. SMT. YASHODHA W/O SRI KEMPANNA D/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 5. SMT. SUDHA W/O SRI MUNIKRISHNA D/O SRI NARYAANAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT HANABE VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203 6. SMT. SHARADHA W/O SRI HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT MADESWARA VILLAGE HANABE POST DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN - 561 203 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO. 10020/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.10.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO. 505/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DODDABALLAPUR, AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4457 RSA No. 975 of 2022 THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for ninth time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, appellant was directed to comply with office objections till closure of Court hours. However, there is no representation and office objections remained un-complied. This would indicate that appellant is not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 59